Has it been conclusively proven a forgery or is the jury still out on this?

http://www.physorg.com/news4652.html

Found that article, hope it helps.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20615741-5001942,00.html


This one too. Whoa, lots of articles.

Forgery isn't really the right word. It's age is the key fact... and based on the testing methods we have, it's shown to be nowhere near 2000 years old.

Forgery isn't really the right word. It's age is the key fact...and based on the testing methods we have, it's shown to be nowhere near 2000 years old.

Disheartening, really... :(

http://www.physorg.com/news4652.html

Found that article, hope it helps.

After speaking against the shroud's authenticity the article at the site you provided finishes in the following way:

Excerpt:
In January this year, a US chemist, Raymond Rogers, said the radiocarbon samples for the 1988 study were taken from a piece that had been sewn into the fabric by nuns who repaired the Shroud after it was damaged in a church blaze in 1532.

Rogers said that his analysis of other samples, based on levels of a chemical called vanillin that results from the decomposition of flax and other plants, showed the Shroud could be "between 1,300 and 3,000 years old."